Thanks so much for the info. My doc will not be around to give the recommendation for a couple of weeks of who I am going to see for the next step--biopsy or the fibroscan. I understand all that you all have said clearly. I think the age thing is bothering me quite a bit now-I have seen that a few times about the progress speeding up. I now have friends who are telling me about friends or relatives of theirs who have already died from this. They were actuallly afraid to tell me. Most did not change their habits at all involving smoking, alcohol use or diet. I am still absolutely scared of the current treatments and those side affects. I don't have someone living with me and staying with my kids and my young grandchildren just seems to much to put on them. I want to hold out for something without the interferon--but that may be asking for a miracle.
I agree with most of the posters above. The VL is irrelevant. It can fluctuate daily, and a high VL does not mean more or faster rate of damage. A low VL does not mean less damage. It is the presence of the virus in the blood that leads to the liver damage. If the virus is present, it is damaging the liver. As frijole said, the progress of liver damage can be slow, but sometimes it can be faster. My husband's VL has always been in the middle range (except when undergoing treatment of course), and yet he progressed from f1/f2 in 2007 to f4/Cirrhosis in 2010. As others have said, your next step is to learn as much as you can about your specific stage of liver damage so that you and your doctor can determine the best course of action. At your age, your risk for progressing to Cirrhosis is higher, and if you progress to Cirrhosis, treating your Hep C becomes more difficult. Here is some information about viral load from my journals that another forum member, hrsepwrguy, shared awhile back:
http://www.medhelp.org/user_journals/show/332522/Viral-Load-HCV-Equivalents-per-Milliliter--Viral-Load-Chart
Feel free to ask any questions.
Advocate1955
My husband never had a biopsy either before his liver transplant. He had cat scans and ultrasounds. He was diagnosed with cirrhosis, ESLD, hepatic encephalopathy and esophageal varices (which were banded). As I recall, they felt doing a biopsy was an unnecessary risk in his case..
You can know a whole lot about the liver histology without undergoing a liver biopsy. Although there seems to be a consensus here that everyone should get a biopsy I am not in agreement. I never had a biopsy before my transplant and yet I received a liver. And yes, my liver was shot.
There is Fibroscan and blood test results that can often diagnose pretty accurately the shape of the liver.
Now, that's not to say I have anything against against liver biopsies. I've had more than I can remember but it's been at least 8 and some of them were performed in my hospital room and obviously there was not ultrasound guidance with those. I found them to be no big thing although I do prefer the ultrasound guided ones.
for my particular situation, I agree with your statement.
However, some people I know of knew they had HCV decided to go the healthy natural route, did keep track of their viral load (stayed low, very low), as well as their liver disease progression.
I respect your opinion and I agree that drawing conclusions is difficult, at times.